It says "Snake was under heavy fire and taking life-threatening damage, which Ground Zeroes visualized with blood spatters hitting the camera lens. Snake managed to make it to cover, where he restored himself to full health. Not through the consumption of rations, mind you. Snake's health appeared to regenerate automatically." I'm assuming it's going to be implemented like FPS games, where you get damage, and if you manage to not get hit again for a few seconds, you regain full HP. I'm not sure how accurate or how the author of this article meant to word this, but I'm going to wait to see for myself.

You know. I wonder why they didn't go for more streamlined approach of the healing system in MGS3, but with the visual representation of your character preparing medicine and treating his wounds, like in The Last of Us for example.

The joke being that the author of that particular series of books 'attempted' to rationalize certain aspects of videogame logic like how rations helped you get through the electrified floor gauntlet at the end of the original Metal Gear by saying that Snake was able to pass through the hazard relatively unscathed because the floor was PG-fied down to a heated floor that was too hot to touch normally and only by altering his core body temperature via pigging out on rations was Snake able to bypass the trap without getting hurt (no dying, because again, PG-fied).

Basically, its an amazingly amusing effort at trying to rationalize videogame logic which is a fools errand to begin with as videogame logic is what keeps videogames from being simulations. And the point I was trying to make is that trying to say that one form of videogame mechanics is less logical than another isn't entirely a merit-less argument but it is a silly one.